Re: shared_buffers documentation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: shared_buffers documentation
Date
Msg-id t2s603c8f071004141553gc4d838dcve93701070af1834e@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: shared_buffers documentation  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> As for updating the size recommendations, the text at
>>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server has been
>>> beaten into the status quo by a number of people.  Here's what might make
>>> sense from there to insert into the docs, removing the bits referring to
>>> older versions, rewriting a bit for manual tone, and noting the checkpoint
>>> issues:
>
>> This is good text.  I will incorporate it with slight copy editing if
>> no one objects.
>
> Looks good to me too, although perhaps more than the single use of
> "dedicated" is needed to remind people that these numbers are only
> appropriate if the machine is not doing anything else than running
> (one instance of) Postgres.  Should we expend a whole sentence
> on that?

IMHO that would be overkill, but that's just MHO.  Other opinions?

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Thoughts on pg_hba.conf rejection
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5412: test case produced, possible race condition.